Classification paper
Paper Requirements:
Your paper must discuss three to five distinct explanations (or categories of explanation) for your mystery. It should be approximately 1500-2000 words in length and adhere to the paper format guidelines in the syllabus and to MLA format. Use third person (no "I" statements), formal diction (no slang) and an objective tone (no taking sides). The paper should comprise four parts, though these should not be labelled in the paper itself:
Introduction
Begin with an attention-getter. Then introduce the mystery and preview your categories, in order. In other words, briefly mention them in a sentence or in a few sentences, so the reader knows what to expect. Since you are not taking a position, you do not need a thesis statement. Your introduction may be a paragraph or two in length, but no longer than a page. Make it interesting and be specific.
Background
Before you explore theories, acquaint the reader with any necessary details about the mystery. Consider giving a short history of events or description of phenomena. However, keep this section short, no longer than a paragraph or two. It may help to write long, edit short. Also, do not just list facts; connect them.
Classification
This is the main part of the paper and should span several pages. Discuss each explanation in detail, in the order in which you previewed them. Use source material for support, but let your ideas run the show; you must connect the source material to what you have to say. Remember to cite anything you use. Each category in your classification may comprise multiple paragraphs. Avoid paragraphs longer than a page or shorter than a third of a page.
Conclusion
Conclusions may be the hardest part to write. Chapter 7 offers excellent advice (138). Read it. Your conclusion should be brief but effective, no more than a paragraph or two. Don't end with a quote since you would be ending with someone else's words instead of your own. Avoid restating ideas. Instead, sustain the reader's interest. Don't bring in new theories, but give your topic a new slant, make a prediction or put the mystery in perspective. You might suggest a way to determine which theory or theories are correct, or praise or blame current efforts being made to solve the mystery. Whatever you do, don't use vague statements, especially the kind that could apply to anything: "This mystery may never be solved," "There are several possible answers to this mystery," etc.
Then there is the Works Cited.
Works Cited
Your Works Cited should contain at least seven sources. At least three of them should be different from those in your AWC. More is better. Remember that each source listed in your Works Cited must be cited at least once in your paper, and any source cited in your paper must appear in your Works Cited. As in your AWC, sources should demonstrate variety: at least one journal article, one book and one website. Some of them should be recent (within the last three to five years), and dictionaries and encyclopediae do not count towards the required seven.
Don't forget:
The Title
It is often easiest to come up with the title after you write the paper. You need both a title and a subtitle. The title should be creative and grab the reader's attention, even though it may not be clear from it what the paper is about. That is the purpose of the subtitle, to describe the topic. An example:
Death in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt:
The Murder of Tutankhamen
Any plagiarism may result in failure of the paper or the course.
Model Classification:
View
GRADE SAVER
GRADE SAVER makes no guarantees about saving anyone's grade. However, reading it is wise since it represents typical (and actual) comments on other students' papers so that you might learn from their mistakes. In addition, these comments do not address every potential problem but many that seem common. Some comments may be specific, but the larger concept may be applied to your writing. Though using GRADE SAVER will require time on your part, it is a TIME SAVER for me since, if used effectively, it should allow me to spend less time writing similar comments about your paper and instead write briefer comments like "excellent" and "well done." But that largely depends on you.
There is a lot to digest here, so I recommend coming back to GRADE SAVER repeatedly as you work through the writing process (to make sure you haven't missed anything). And lest you giggle too hard at the follies of your brothers and sisters in composition, remember that without GRADE SAVER these remarks might have been made about your paper (but they won't be, right?).
Rubric
comments . . .
effective development of ideas
Connect ideas. How does the first quote relate to the sentence after it? Work on better transitions.
I don’t detect a classification here, at least not a clear one that is delineated in your introduction. This is a problem. In your intro, you state that “the opinion will vary” but you never explain how. Be specific.
Many points could be better developed. For example, you link Bacon to the pit because of his interest in codes, but you don’t explain this. Also, is there any evidence that he was the son of Drake? Expand on your observations with more details. More sources would definitely help.
Often you refer to “many people” or “some researchers.” Which ones? How many?
Transitions are missing or rough, and the paper sometimes seems like a patchwork. What are the different items being classified?
This is well done but short—only 953 words. Each theory could be explored in more depth.
The information is thorough, but it is difficult to follow and often seems unorganized. Preview your ideas and use transitions to connect them logically for coherence.
Your three theories are not distinct. For example, why couldn’t the first and second BOTH be correct?
Your background is very detailed (though could be broken up into a few paragraphs, or made more concise), but the discussion of theories could be developed with outside evidence—you hardly have any citations here.
Work on transitions between ideas. You leap from one idea (disability) to another (poison) without any bridge or context.
In your discussion of squid, whales, etc., there is a lack of external support for your assertions. These ideas could be developed.
Interesting theories, but lack of support from external sources. Ideas could be developed in more detail.
You need a third alternative; you only have two.
At the bottom of page 4 you treat the conspiracy theories as fact—what organizations were involved—instead of might have been involved. Maintain objectivity for now.
Ideas could be developed some more and explored using additional outside sources.
proper use and citation of sources
Often you present detailed information without citing any sources. Where did you get it from?
It’s only necessary to cite one source for a piece of information.
Your use of quotations is good, but keep in mind that you MUST CITE paraphrase as well—this seems to be lacking.
When you refer to the article in Skeptic explain which one.
Review rules for block quotes.
When incorporating quotes, make sure they fit your sentence structure grammatically and do not lead to run-on sentences.
Delete commas from citations.
You need to cite sources as they appear in your WC, and some do not seem to be cited anywhere in your paper. Also, you cite “Swaim” but there is no Swaim listed in your WC. This is a big problem.
Cite sources. For example, you state that some people claim they crashed on an island, but there is no citation. Where did you get this information?
Delete periods before citations.
Period goes AFTER citation except in block quote.
Are all sources in your WC cited in your paper—Voeller, for instance?
At least three entries in your WC do not seem to be cited in your paper.
In the paper you cite “Bleu” but there is no one by that name in the WC, only a “Blau.” Same person?
It’s not clear why you quotes some things, such as a doctor’s credentials. This could be paraphrased.
When you cite a title, format the title (for example, underline it).
Many of your sources in your WC are not actually cited in your paper, so why are they in your WC?
Citations MUST match WC. You cite “pet-abuse.com” but have no such entry in your WC.
When two citations in a row are the same source, you only need to mention a change in page numbers.
effective introduction and conclusion
Preview theories.
Introduce the concept of Ollantaytambo: what is it and where is it, etc. Do this up front.
The second paragraph introduces a very long quote—you, as the author, have disappeared! Don’t let the quotes run the show.
Intro too brief—you need to preview theories.
Your preview could be more explicit.
Conclusion is a bit flat.
I’m not sure why you couldn’t have paraphrased the story instead of quoting it.
I only find two answers mentioned in the intro—magnets and the world grid. What about a third?
The quote in the intro is nice but needs context.
Conclusion is somewhat informal and chatty.
Conclusion is brief.
quality of writing
(revision and editing)
Refer to GRADE SAVER for AWC.
Avoid “I” opinion statements.
Avoid fragments and comma splices, esp. when quoting.
Review sentence structure and avoid comma splices.
Review punctuation in quotes.
1900s—not 1900’s.
You use a lot of passive voice (his theory was not discussed, now it is more widely accepted). Who did not discuss it and why? Who accepts it and why? There is a lack of details in the writing that makes it difficult to understand. Explain who is doing what and why.
Edit and proofread: the first line mentions 1914 twice, then again it appears in the next sentence.
Check spelling: Princess of Wales/Whales.
For measurements, use numbers: 6 to 8 ft in length.
Work on clear phrasing. This sentence is rather wordy and confusing: “Unsure if her disappearance was not at her will with the limited information that was obtained by those involved in the initial search leads to other possibilities that Anthonette may have fled at her own will.” Instead, perhaps: “It is unclear what caused Anthonette’s disappearance, but perhaps she chose to flee.”
Works Cited with required sources
Refer to GRADE SAVER for AWC.
WC is incomplete and not organized properly.
WC should be separate page.
Use italics or underlining, NOT both.
Spacing must be consistent.
Oct.—with period.
Abbreviate publishers.
Most of your sources are websites, so try to find some journal articles and some other books for variety.
When alphabetizing, do not count the words A, An and The.
You do have two sources, but you need seven.
proper page format and title/subtitle
Refer to GRADE SAVER for AWC.
Use only last name in header.
Review format—1 inch margins.
Review caps in your title.
Make header font size consistent with text.
Use colon for subtitle.
Need subtitle.
You need subtitle—title is generic.